Poirier v. Massachusetts Department of Correction
558 F.3d 92, 28 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1360, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 3940 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state regulation prohibiting corrections officers from associating with former inmates does not violate the constitutional right to intimate association. Such a rule is a rational means of promoting the legitimate and compelling government interest in prison security and will survive judicial review due to the high deference afforded to prison administrators.
Facts:
- Melissa Poirier was a corrections officer for the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) for fifteen years.
- A DOC rule prohibited employees from associating with any former inmate without specific approval from a supervisor.
- In April 2004, Poirier notified her superiors that she would be in social contact with Dennis Novicki, a former inmate.
- Poirier and Novicki developed a "deep attachment and commitment" to each other.
- In July 2004, Poirier requested permission from the DOC Commissioner for Novicki to move in with her.
- The DOC denied Poirier's request for cohabitation.
- On August 11, 2005, the DOC terminated Poirier's employment for having unauthorized contact with Novicki.
Procedural Posture:
- Melissa Poirier filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) and its Commissioner, Kathleen Dennehy, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the DOC rule survived rational basis review and that the defendants were otherwise immune.
- Poirier (Appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state Department of Correction rule prohibiting employees from associating with former inmates, which results in the termination of a corrections officer for her romantic relationship with a former inmate, violate the officer's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to intimate association?
Opinions:
Majority - Stahl, Circuit Judge
No. A state Department of Correction rule prohibiting employees from associating with former inmates does not violate the officer's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to intimate association. The court declined to expand the list of fundamental rights subject to strict scrutiny to include the cohabitation of unmarried adults. The court found it unnecessary to decide whether rational basis or intermediate scrutiny applies because the DOC's rule would survive either test due to the significant deference afforded to prison administrators on security matters. The state's interest in preventing fraternization between guards and former inmates to preserve prison order and security is a legitimate and powerful one that outweighs the intrusion into Poirier's private life.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the judiciary's significant deference to prison administrators in matters of institutional security. It clarifies that while the right to intimate association exists, it is not absolute, especially for public employees in sensitive roles like corrections officers. The court's refusal to extend strict scrutiny to cohabitation between unmarried adults in this context signals that challenges to such regulations will likely fail unless the rule is completely irrational, a very high bar. This case serves as a strong precedent for upholding anti-fraternization policies in law enforcement and corrections settings against constitutional challenges based on intimate association.
